The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers, Volume 2
Page 43
You will notice that a number of these suggestions more or less coincide with those made by Cross, Manson, etc.8
I also heartily endorse the demand made by Symons for some sort of statement about oecumenical Christian doctrine (not “Christian principles”) to be issued by leading theologians of all the great communions, both as a basis for school instruction, and also as a reply to the common allegation (see, e.g. Mozley in the October Hibbert Journal)9 that it’s no good the Churches demanding instruction in doctrine because they can’t agree about what the doctrine is. But I have hopes that something may be about to materialize in this field, if all goes well with a plot that is a-hatching at the moment.10
Whale’s protest against dogmatic theology is happily belied by his practice in his recent book on Christian Doctrine, which is almost classic in its dogmatic orthodoxy. In my experience (such as it is) the resentment and hostility of which he complains are aroused in their most violent form by any assertion that Jesus is fully God. It seems to me that on this point Christians would do well to stick to their guns and take whatever hostility is coming to them. The early Church that people are so fond of quoting doesn’t seem to have shrunk from exciting hostility on this subject. If the battle of Nicaea has to be fought all over again, it might as well be fought now, without any further attempts at appeasement.
I agree with Prestige11 et al. that some sort of guide to existing publications would be very helpful. It must be a catalogue raisonnée, with brief outline of content and treatment, and indication of the amount of “theological literacy” each book presupposes in the reader. The catalogue should also contain references to books like R. O. Kapp’s Science versus Materialism,12 which, while not specifically Christian or even Theist, aim at cutting away the ground from under the various pseudo-scientific antagonists within their own territory.
As regards books on Christian Social Order, it seems very necessary that something should be done about the matter of Work and Vocation, which has got into a most hideous muddle. It is not pleasant to see men’s labour, which should be their life, reduced to being a mere aspect of power-politics. I [had] got T. M. Heron13 to write a book about this for the Bridgeheads series; but unhappily, just as he was getting along beautifully, Lord Woolton14 came and took him away, and God knows when he will be able to get finished. I believe Demant is also interested in this question. Along with it goes the question of the Church’s attitude to secular vocation concerning which Michael de la Bedoyère has an impassioned chapter in Christian Crisis;15 and the relations between the Church and the Arts, on which I touched at Malvern.16 It’s not a matter of the Church “getting hold of the Arts”, as the Bishop of Chichester seems to imagine.17 It’s a matter of (a) presenting the artist with a brand of Christianity which can inform and inspire his secular work, and (b) recognising the autonomy of the artist’s vocation as such. As it is, the greatest living creative force in the secular world is functioning right outside the pale of Christendom. Incidentally, this is why so many religious books are ill-written and incomprehensible to the ordinary man with no practice in, or reverence for, words, no vital power with words, and no sensitiveness for the associations which words arouse in the reader. (Ditto with Church painting and music.)
This letter is already more than sufficiently long, more than sufficiently belated, and much less than sufficiently helpful. But the whole thing gives me the feeling of struggling with an octopus in a jungle. Christopher Dawson18 seems to feel quite hopeless about it — but I think he exaggerates!
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 This letter is reproduced from a typed copy of the original. It has no salutation and it is not known to whom it was addressed. A copy was sent to Mrs Bell by D. L. S., enclosed in a letter dated 26 April 1942, thanking her for hospitality and saying she hoped the “memorandum” would amuse the Bishop. The copy in Lambeth Palace Library is headed “Letter from Miss Dorothy Sayers”. This indicates that it was not typed by her secretary, who would not have omitted the “L”. It may have originally been addressed to the convener of the Theological Literature Association, whose meeting in Oxford D. L. S. had been unable to attend.
2 See letter to Michael de la Bedoyère, 7 October 1941, note 12.
3 Leslie Frank Simmonds, Framework of Faith (Teaching of the Church Ser., 1), London 1939.
4 Bede Frost, Who?: A Book About God, London 1940.
5 C. H. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine, Oxford 1940.
6 Cf. her Introduction to The Emperor Constantine.
7 See letter to the Rev. T. Wigley, 1 September 1941, note 4.
8 It is evident that a memorandum of the proceedings of the meeting of the Theological Literature Association had been sent to her.
9 Lieut.-Col. E. N. Mozley, D.S.O., “Religious Liberty and the B.B.C.”
10 D. L. S. and Dr James Welch were planning a series of talks by representatives of the chief Christian denominations.
11 See letter to Maynard D. Follin, 23 July 1942, note 10.
12 Reginald Otto Kapp, Science Versus Materialism, London 1940.
13 See letter to V. A. Demant, 10 April 1941, note 7.
14 Woolton, 1st Earl of (1922–1969), Director-General of Equipment and Stores in Ministry of Supply (1939–1940), Minister of Food (1940–1943).
15 See letter to him dated 7 October 1941.
16 At the Conference held in January 1941.
17 See letter to Count de la Bedoyère, 7 October 1941.
18 Christopher Dawson (1889–1970), Roman Catholic author and lecturer. D. L. S. recommends his Beyond Politics under “Some Books to Read” in Begin Here.
On 10 December a press conference, organized by Dr Welch, was held at Berners Hotel, Berners Street, London. Dr Welch addressed the assembled reporters and D. L. S. read aloud a statement she had prepared about the plays, stressing the use of modern English and the impersonation of Christ by an actor. She was asked to read a few examples of the dialogue. One of the scenes she chose was the beginning of the fourth play, “The Heirs to the Kingdom”, where Matthew reproaches Philip for having been cheated by a merchant. The journalists leapt on the informality of Matthew’s speech.1 The Daily Mail came out with the headline: “B.B.C. Life of Christ Play in U.S. Slang”. Other papers reported sensationally on the use of modern English and the representation of Christ. There was a violent public reaction. The Lord’s Day Observance Society and the Protestant Truth Society mounted a determined opposition. Petitions were sent to the Prime Minister and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Questions were asked in the House of Commons. The desks of newspaper editors were deluged. Leaflets of protestation were handed out in public places.
On 13 December Dr Welch wrote:
…It is outrageous that the cheap press should write of these plays as the Daily Mail has done…But I am entirely convinced that the conference was well worth holding, partly because we wanted to capture the attention of listeners who do not normally listen to religious broadcasts…but chiefly because I entirely support you in your determination to cast the whole play into modern language and to make the characters real.…
D. L. S. replied:
1 Matthew: “Fact is, Philip my boy, you’ve been had for a sucker. Let him ring the changes on you proper. You ought to keep your eyes skinned, you did really. If I was to tell you the dodges these fellows have up their sleeves, you’d be surprised.”
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DR JAMES WELCH
15 December 1941
Dear Dr. Welch,
The Man Born to be King
In case any difficulty is being caused by the attitude of the cheap Press and the Lord’s Day Observance people, I think it may help to clarify your position if I make my own position clear.
Under the terms by which I am contracted to the BBC, I have the right to insist that the plays shall be performed as I h
ave written them, subject only to your personal approval (which I have already received in writing) and the technical requirements of production. If there is to be any question of tinkering with the general presentment, or with isolated passages, in order to appease outside interests, I shall be regretfully obliged to withdraw the scripts, under the terms of the contract.
You will understand, I am sure, that I would not consent to complete the series, or permit any parts of it to be broadcast, under conditions which would interfere with the integrity of my work; since this would be fair neither to yourself nor to me, nor to the producer.
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO HER SON
18 December 1941
Dear John,
Best congratulations on your scholarship.1 I thought you would pull it off all right. Well done.
Now, of course, all the arguments begin over again. Mr. Ridley2 naturally thinks you would be better at College than doing war-work, and passionately rebuts the suggestion that Oxford is behaving in a remote and academic way. It’s very difficult to tell how to act for the best. It depends a good deal on how long the war is going to last, and that’s a thing nobody knows. I mean, if it’s going on for another ten years or so, there will be plenty of time for doing Oxford first and the war later. If it only goes on for another two or three years, your generation will find itself in that rather awkward position of being at one and the same time “privileged” and out of touch, when it comes to tackling the problems of peace. I’m sure that we have got to avoid, this time, any sort of chasm between the “intellectuals” and the rest of the nation. Of course, the whole thing is really a hopeless dilemma. Last time, the best younger intelligences joined up instantly, went to France and were killed; so that we were left with a remnant of C33 people and conchies,4 who (being inflicted with an inferiority complex about the war) started a de-bunking campaign against all the “manly virtues” and landed us with a lot of difficulties. So that’s an argument against war and for education. But this time, if we try to hold on to the younger intelligences, it may only mean that they will still be in the same position, but that there will be more of them — and they may also find that there is a certain class-prejudice against those whose educational facilities have given them shelter.
Anyhow, I quite agree with Ridley that it’s a question of how you feel about it. If you like to go up straight away, take Oxford at a gallop, so to speak, and then carry on, it might after all be the best way. The loss of one term won’t really matter much. You have brains enough to catch that up. What are you thinking of reading?5
If you think it over and tell me what you really judge would suit you best, I’ll make whatever financial arrangements are necessary.
Love and again congratulations,
D. L. F.
Despite the continuing uproar, rehearsals went ahead, not in Broadcasting House, where a suite of dramatic studios had been demolished in a raid, but in the tiny Grafton Theatre in Tottenham Court Road, from which all the plays were broadcast. The first play, “Kings in Judaea”, went out on 21 December and D. L. S. wrote in gratitude and relief to Val Gielgud:
1 John Anthony had just won a scholarship to Balliol College, Oxford. (Balliol was Lord Peter Wimsey’s college.)
2 Roy Ridley was to be John Anthony’s Tutor. He was the physical original of Lord Peter Wimsey. See Barbara Reynolds, Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul, pp. 56–57. See also letter to Catherine Godfrey, 29 July 1913, pp. 79–80, and note 21; letter to Muriel St Clare Byrne, 6 March 1935, pp. 345–346, and note 2 (The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers: 1899–1936).
3 A medical category which exempted men from being called up.
4 Conscientious objectors.
5 John Anthony read Modern Greats, i.e. Philosophy, Politics and Economics, known as P.P.E. He obtained a First-Class degree.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO VAL GIELGUD
22 December 1941
Dear Val,
This is just to say, once more, thank you for giving “Kings in Judaea” such a grand cast and such a lovely show. Whatever happens, I do and shall always feel most tremendously grateful for the sympathy and enthusiasm you’ve put into it all, and I’m frightfully sorry that you should have had all this extra bother and fuss and worry about it, especially when you were so overworked and so tired. It really is a shame, and I feel it’s all my fault. I do think you’re a delightful person to work for – and if there’s anything you want me to do for your shows I’ll do it if I possibly can – always supposing that both our names aren’t mud when the fighting is over; in which case, all we can do is to stick in the mud together and suffer for our convictions.
I came home to find my husband full of enthusiasm – and he is a person difficult to enthuse about serious shows. He thought it came over splendidly and was a fine show. So did my friend Miss Barber, who is staying with us – (she is writing you a little fan-letter on her own account; I think you probably met her once with me and Muriel Byrne).
There were one or two little points I forgot to say in the fuss and flutter yesterday for instance, Laidman Browne1 made such an excellent job of reading the Evangelist bits. That’s not a showy job, but it’s one that can do a lot of damage to the show if it’s done wrong, and he got it dead right, without being either flat or unctuous. And I didn’t have an opportunity to praise Val Dyall,2 who was a perfect bit of casting for Melchior – or the chap who played Matthias3 and had such a grand demagogue style of oratory. For some reason, actors often get that kind of thing unconvincing, but he was excellent. These little bits, quite apart from the work of the leading people, most of whom I did manage to thank. Oh! except “little Zillah” I didn’t see her, to speak to, but I did say to you how good I thought she was.4 Nobody could want a show better cast or produced, and I feel you done me proud.
I hope you weren’t too utterly exhausted. I nearly fell asleep in the train coming home, though I hadn’t been doing any work at all, and it really was dreadful for you having to toil to Manchester. I hope your dinner tonight will be worth it!
Well, bless you and all the best – and as good a Christmas as any producer can possibly hope to spend on the panel!
Yours ever,
[D. L. S.]
D. L. S. wrote in similar terms of gratefulness to Dr Welch, who replied on 24 December:
You thank me! Oh no: thank you, for a play which brilliantly handled a complicated historical situation, for giving the actors something which really “got ’em” and for your lovely and reverent handling of the Nativity.…
1 Laidman Browne (1896–1961). He is remembered in the roles of Caesar, William the Conqueror, Henry V, etc. in 1066 and All That.
2 Valentine Dyall (1908–1985), son of the actors Franklin Dyall and Mary Merrall.
3 Abraham Sofaer (1896–1988), Burmese actor on British stage from 1921.
4 Maureen Glynne.
1942
A landmark in broadcasting
The public uproar in protest against the broadcasting of the plays continued. Dr Welch now had the task of persuading the Central Religious Advisory Committee to allow the plays to continue. There was no time to call a meeting before the broadcast of the first play, but he sent copies of the second and third plays to all thirteen members, asking them to comment by post, telephone or telegram.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DR JAMES WELCH
6 January 1942
Dear Dr. Welch,
This is just to wish you good luck in your fight with the beasts. I’m rather past caring now what happens to the plays from a personal point of view. But if these wire-pulling, vociferous, and excessively ignorant sects manage to beat us again, there will be a loss of face which ecclesiastical and civil authority will hardly recover. Already the papers are
sneering at the Laodicean1 policy of the Churches; and if the Advisory Board, who originally sanctioned the thing, don’t stand to their guns, they will look pretty feeble. “Wars are not won by evacuations”2 – and though we can rely on you to make a Dunkirk of it, there will be a loss in armaments, baggage and fighting-power that will take some time to make up.